Judgment :- VENKATASWAMI J. Pursuant to an order of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following questions "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the repair charges of Rs. 15, 904 on the car belonging to the wife of the director should be allowed as business expenditure of the assessee ? and (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that such expenditure was not capital in nature and that it was a revenue expenditure relating to the business of the assessee ?" The brief facts leading to the reference may now be noted One V. D. Narayanan was one of the directors of the respondent company during the relevant period. He was discharging the day-to-day work regarding the publication of the newspapers. On June 16, 1972, there was some commotion and riot in the business premises of the assessee-company during the course of which the car in which the said V.D. Narayanan came to the office was set on fire and was damaged by the miscreants. As a result of that, an expenditure of Rs. 15, 904 was incurred towards repairs. That was borne by the company and subsequently ratified in the board's resolution. When the assessee wanted that expenditure to be allowed as business expenditure, the Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that it was incurred for non-business considerations, viz., to relieve the director from his personal responsibility. Aggrieved by that disallowance, the respondent-company preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who took a different view and held that the said expenditure was for business purposes and, therefore, allowable as claimed by the assessee. The Revenue preferred a further appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the present revisionMr. N. V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, reiterated the view expressed by the Income-tax Officer, and, in particular, submitted that the expenditure incurred as mentioned above, must be treated as one incurred by the said V. D. Narayanan, and to compensate him the company has paid the same and, therefore, it has no nexus with the business of the company. Accordingly, he submitted that the view taken by the Income-tax Officer has to be sustained instead of the view taken by the other two authorities On the other hand, Mr. K. C. Rajappa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the Tribunal has taken the correct view stating that in any event the expenditure cannot be said to be not incidental to the assessee's business. He also brought to our notice various circumstances taken into account by the Tribunal while coming to that conclusion. Those circumstances, in the words of the Tribunal, are the following ". . . .Undoubtedly, Shri V. D. Narayanan as director of the assessee-company had been rendering service to the company and for the purpose of rendering service it is necessary for Shri V. D. Narayanan to go to the company's premises. It is not disputed that the car in question was taken to the company's premises, in the discharge of official duties by the director. The loss in question had further admittedly occurred within the business premises of the assessee-company. In order to merit the claim or allowance of expenditure in question, all that has to be established is that the car was actually utilised for the purpose of the business of the assessee company. Undoubtedly, on the facts in this case, it has been established so . . ." The facts we have stated above are not in dispute. The view taken by the Tribunal, on the facts of this case, appears to be in consonance with the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court has held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring in section 37 of the Income-tax Act is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning profits". Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have further held that the expression "for the purpose of business" may also comprehend payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to commence or for the carrying on of a business, and that the same may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a businessIn view of the above ruling of the Supreme Court, we do not think that the Revenue has any case warranting interference with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.